An Author's Take on Turning Your Brain Off
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- We've often heard that some stories are the kind you turn your brain off for, but what does that actually mean?
This is a response to a moment from this livestream from C Monster Essays: • C-Monster LIVE: Discus...
Crisis on Ulalu: www.amazon.com...
Occult Mafia 2: Hoofprints and Lace: www.amazon.com...
Assorted Absurdities: www.amazon.com...
Emerald of Madoc City: www.amazon.com...
Occult Mafia: www.amazon.com...
Operation Red Dragon: www.amazon.com...
Amazon Author Page: www.amazon.com...
DeviantArt: www.deviantart...
Patreon: / omni_viewer
X/Twitter: / omniandsnazzy
#godzilla #author #starwars #symphogear #entertainment #godzillafinalwars #kaiju #writing #anime #lightsaber
What you’re talking about is suspension of disbelief, not “turning your brain off.” The two ideas shouldn’t be conflated. The former is necessary to enjoy speculative fiction.
For me there is a difference between just suspension of disbelief and turning your brain off cuz when I really turn my brain off or have to in order to enjoy very dumb movies it’s needed since if I go back and think about shit it does not make sense or it is more flawed than I thought before, some movies are so bad turning my brain off doesn’t even work like with The Last Jedi.
Dumb or bad movies need you to turn off your brain more due to their flaws or you wouldn’t have a chance to enjoy them.
I can have suspension of disbelief in movies which have fantasy or sci-if but can still look bad and see it as good cuz while it is beyond what we can do in reality it makes internal sense and is explained enough to work logically.
@@LeaderOfTheLostSoulsPreach, bro. Preach the truth.
@@themonsterislandfilmvault5909 I feel that you should give Omni's video "The Monsterverse was never realistic" a watch, because I don't think Omni fully gets that concept.
I think this is a critical detail to enjoying movies with a lot of absurd stuff.
Also, in the Jedi Survivor video game. The Bedlem Raider Lieutenants wield lightsabers without them being force sensitive.
I’ve done a re write of Final Wars, my explanation for Minilla is that he’s Godzilla’s biological son who lives with his mother and Godzilla has only been in ice for about a year rather than decades and Minilla gets involved when his mother decides to look for Godzilla and takes him with her instead of that human subplot
What about Looney Tunes? Remember about Pepe Le pew being censored when people didn’t understand his jokes?
I don’t necessarily think you can entirely shut your brain off. Even with goofy media (Tom & Jerry, Looney Tunes, SpongeBob SquarePants, The Amazing World of Gumball, etc). Part of the entertainment with absurd humour is when you actually think about it and how illogical it is, and you can’t do that with your brain turned off.
And you especially can’t do this with films that intend to be serious. Twilight is complete nonsense, that is an example of “just turn your mind off and you’ll enjoy it”. Translate a lot of that content in a SpongeBob or Looney Tunes storyline, it’d probably make a great comedy.
Maybe it’s me, but as a writer, I can’t shut my mind off to anything. I’m always watching films and shows and I tend to focus on the smaller details and what makes everything good or bad. I can suspend my disbelief of certain things, but that really depends on the story.
I don’t like the “I just wanna turn my brain off” or the “it’s meant to be bad” type of argument, because it exists purely to excuse bad writing. You shouldn’t have to turn your brain off, because at that point you’ll eat anything the chef gives you, even if it’s bad for you. If you have no level of discerning taste, you may never feel disappointed, but you might be missing something great.
Writers should consider every little thing they place onto paper. Does it make sense? Will it hit the audience hard? Should it even be included? How does this scene fit the story?
The second your story starts to fall apart, people are gonna complain and leave feeling frustrated, and that’s not a good thing. Obviously there’s Suspension of Disbelief within stories, but that’s not quite the same as shutting your brain off, and there are things that will take you out of a story if they are neglected by the writer. But if people keep yapping about “shut your brain off”, then writers aren’t gonna care, they’ll just let dimwitted audience members enjoy a half assed story instead (I know that sounds harsh, but that’s pretty much the best way of putting it).
And you put it really damn well.
How do you know Tom and Jerry?!! I thought I knew it was all escapism
@@kaijubeyondbelief8053, who hasn’t heard of Tom & Jerry?
@@The-X-Territory you grew up watching the original shorts?
@@The-X-Territory You know, there is a very interesting video called "Cartoon physics are more logical than you think" that I recommend.
In G Final Wars a part I struggled with is the Sea Monster/Ebirah who is canonically a sea creature attacks on land. I can accept giant monsters, but this is breaking canonical consistency
Whether or not you're serious, I'm still going to go through this.
There is no canon Final Wars is beholden to, unless you also want to attack Minus One (a reboot) Goji for being hurt by his own beam upon every discharge for the first time in franchise history. Final Wars is a reboot, not even a parallel universe situation, so it can decide whatever it wants about the monsters so long as it remains consistent or understandable.
The issues that emerge with Ebirah's inclusion are the I believe unexplained ramifications and causes of the monsters having Mbase as well as the capacity of the mutants to kill Ebirah with tiny guns. This is where I need to rewatch the movie because I am about 70 percent sure there was no explanation given for how Mbase really works and about 50 percent sure Ebirah comes back to get killed by Godzilla. Assuming those as fact (and if I am mistaken, Ebirah would be the only monster in this film whose inclusion I don't have an issue with), it is very strange that after establishing that general sense of powerscaling where the mutant strategy Ozaki is aware of doesn't permit him to take down Ebirah to where they actually must rely on Godzilla.
I already voiced some doubt of your seriousness, but I also just want to say even if that were a retcon and break from canon, it would be the softest kind. He goes on land and immediately gets killed. What would change if it remained consistent with previous lore? Minilla is the actual example of canon inconsistency in this film since the film's own backstory doesn't support the ultimate payoff there
i think if we are looking at lightsabers there are somethings to consider.
The lightsaber works
why do they work in universe - there are several in universe rational to explain why practical concerns aren't a problem for it.
Do we see examples of how its impracticality are present - normal people can't block blaster bolts and you cannot fight as well with one without the force among other things
do we see reasons as to why jedi dont use more practical weapons - an elegant weapon for a more civilized way/so uncivilized - ie a culture that has its own rational for why they don't use blasters
why does the writer want them - because the aesthetic of special knights in space
what we visually see on film - jedi use lightsabers, it is their main weapon, anyone can swing one but there is something (the force) that make the saber work better for the jedi
Barring retcons and just looking at the Geroge movies - the lightsaber isnt explained how it works but we don't need to given the other material around it visually.
what this leads to is the viewer able to except why the lightsaber works without explaining its mechanics but also showing how in other situations why it is a jedi weapon and what make jedi special. Good writers/worldbuilders have to put in the work so that the audience member can simply except what it is they are presenting.
Well said
Great argumentative points Omni Viewer!!!!!! Thank you for sharing thoughts and perspectives for considetation. It is exceedingly appreciated. Personally, my stance on the concept of turning one's brain off is rather simple and sort of in agreement with the opinion of another person in this comment section. That stance is that as long as their is entertainment value in the piece of media or text you are consuming and enjoyment can be derived from them, then wether you turn your brain off or not, or wether you are required to turn your brain off or not, ultimately, does not matter. As long as you can leave the experience with some sort of mental satisfaction, then the article of entertainment has completed the task that it set out to accomplish.
the term "Turning Your Brain Off" , is more like a insult than a argumenta, like they say you need to be "braindead for enjoy someting"
You know I never actually put a whole lot of thought into the whole turn your brain off. I do recognize that there are some forms of media. And there are some you're really shouldn't think about, encourage you to logically think. But all in all I simply just try to enjoy what I watch regardless.
Also I found out and thought you might like to know James wan is going to be directing the up-and-coming remake of the creature from the Black lagoon. He has a lot of good work under him, so it could be a really good film. However I'm disappointed they did not ask Guillermo del Toro.
As far as Godzilla films and all other kaiju films are concerned, I take the advice of Bugs Bunny that was said at the end of one of his cartoons (I can't remember which one that it is at the moment, though):
"I don't ask questions. I just have fun!"
Off-topic for a minute, Omni, I've always thought that the 2004 Minilla was more realistic size-wise when compared to Godzilla as opposed to the 1960s version of him, and was hoping that, if IDW had continued its mainstream Godzilla storyline after GODZILLA: RULERS OF EARTH, they would've introduced said 2004 version of him into said storyline along with Ganimes, the last remaining member of the YOG trio.
I don't like the phrase "turn your brain off". Another poster mentioned the "suspension of disbelief"; that's better, but still sounds a bit too much like an excuse to me. In the following I am speaking only for myself, y'all's mileage probably varies and all that. The executive summary for me is that I can accept different rules, but I still exect them to be RULES.
I can accept that things work the way they're "supposed" to work in their reality. However, I expect those things to be CONSISTENT, and if something could logically be used in another way it is completely fair for me to expect an explanation.
Got that? Then if the rules of the world say Godzilla can take a world tour during what certainly seems to be a single night - as depicted in Godzilla Final Wars - I know perfectly well that's absurd. But if you turn around and try to make a plot poin that Godzilla can't get somewhere else in time because it's too far away, that's a problem.
I can accept that lightsabers work the way they're depicted as working, despite the problems with physics. They can be poked through a steel door over a foot thick and cut through it with a bit of effort without causing the metal around it to start superheating? Fine. But if someone drops an activated lightsaber, that thing needs to turn off or I need to see it start burning through whatever it hits. Similarly, I can accept that ships and even a spherical space station can travel at FTL speeds. But if I see that spherical space station appear on the opposite side of a gas giant and then sloooooowly move to the moon it wants to blow up? I have questions (and yes, I had them as a kid seeing the movie).
And yes, I've heard the explanation for that last one. IT SHOULD'VE BEEN IN THE MOVIE ITSELF. Takes less than ten seconds and could easily have been voice-overed during another scene.
To tell on myself? I can accept that this superheroic setting has an energy form \ particle named 'quantum' that allows supers to use their powers despite some of the side effects physics say they should - allowing a super-strong character to lift a train despite all the weight meaning she should be sinking into the ground when she does. But if I create a character a character that creates portals and say she doesn't use them to launch satellites because of air pressure, I'd better be prepared to explain why they don't just put the satellites in a large vacuum-sealed room before launching them. The answer of course was to come up with a better explanation 😲
Goated comment.
Yeah internal consistency is what's the key.
@@josephgibson5902 Exactly.
Debatable on _Final Wars_ being a comedy; Anguirus makes tire screeching noises when he moves and the film borrows whole sequences from far better movies unironically. I describe it as a spoof, like _Galaxy Quest,_ and the fact Toho chose a spoof to be their 50th anniversary film says quite a lot about what Toho thought of the IP in 2004.
@@AJadedLizard Interested to hear from how many movies has Final Wars borrowed scenes from.
Tho there is a major error in your assessment here; you make it sound like in general Toho ever cared about its IP even before then.
@@vaggos2003 The two biggest ones are _The Matrix_ and _Return of the Jedi_ but there may be others.
@@AJadedLizard Return of the Jedi? How so?
Also, there was clear X-Men and Independence Day influence as well.
Come to think of it, the audacity to crap on one of Ronald's movies and then copy another one.
@@vaggos2003 The climax of the film involves a single fighter flying into a spherical space ship and blowing up a column-shaped power core. That just straight up is the way the Second Death Star was destroyed.
I dunno about an ID4 reference; the Xillians don't really feel like the aliens from those movies.
@@AJadedLizard What you just described was actually the Independence Day reference.
Also, saying that, I recommend Pointless Hub who recently covered this movie.
MV Fans always flip-flop, when addressed with criticism of their film, by stating "they're not meant to be taken seriously, you're supposed to turn your brain off and have FUN" while also stating "these movies are deep, you're just too dumb to understand them". I've heard the same from other fandoms - what they watch is so well-written and so deep yet when confronted with criticisms that don't mesh with what they initially believed, they proceed to gaslight said criticis by stating "w-why do you care so much about human characters in a monster film, durrr...you're just a grumpy old man who doesn't know how to have fun!"
So...
Which is it, MV fanboys?
Are the films meant to be dumb fun or are they secret masterpieces that your average critic is too smooth brained to understand?
So first of all not exactly on topic of the video and seemingly ignoring the parts of the video that answer parts of this, where stuff like Emma's motivations or more recently I'd even argue Trapper's motivations aren't satisfactorily covered by turning one's brain off but the Hollow Earth as a concept can be. (Now the back to back retcons in every installment along HE lines is bad, but those tropes do not cause or prevent characters from acting logically, so we can discard those before appraising the merits and flaws). If I'm misreading this and you do agree with the video, then I do not understand using that as a jumping off point here to attack a subset of fans you claim to be "MV Fans"
Secondly, and this is the more important thing, what part of keeping your brain on enabled you to make this argument where you generalize all fans of a franchise and use that to poison the well ahead of your question and invite for response by tying me or anyone else that can respond to you to the poor arguments of people you've already talked to? As the video discusses with "turning one's brain off" though that part of the video more described suspension of disbelief, context clues will tinge the way I interact with your comment. The quotes of misc. alleged fans I can buy into since I have seen bad arguments on both sides, but your smug tone and blatant holding of everyone that would react with this content to one of two rigid options means I can actually interpret you as a bad faith actor here.
I have defended GvK and GxK in this channel's comment section a few times in the past, and I think I did a good job of balancing criticism to the actual merits of the films, rather than falling into your false dichotomy of either peak fiction I have to condescend to you about or trash that I somehow deserve you to condescend to me about. I would say that the Wingard films both have sizeable problems (and the shared tropes between them get worse in GxK), I would only appraise GxK as a 4 out of 10 film, and I would not personally put a single Monsterverse film in S tier (even KOTM, which I believe to the film you referenced that is supposedly too deep for us despite mismanaging characters, which to be fair I agree with you about but was an unhelpful way to phrase it that will impede discourse). I refuse to be tied to your knocked down strawmen and have to choose between two options you say are all inclusive but aren't. (Now yes, your message and choice is the dichotomy for the people you are complaining about, but you have grouped in an unnecessary amount of people here on a video that agrees more than it disagrees and can be used against you as well).
As for my defenses of the Wingard films particularly, since it might be difficult to find the videos I've commented on, basically I think Nathan Lind has a character arc of learning to take responsibility for Kong that we can chart scene to scene after his introduction. (Not trusting Kong on the ship, circumstance forcing him to save Kong, opportunistically putting Kong in danger again, saving Kong again out of necessity, bonding with Jia and Ilene, taking their advice at certain times and finally when everything has gone wrong risking his own life to save Kong for no personal reward but because Kong's death was his fault and made Jia sad, consider also the coward line reprisal and context). If you disagree then we can discuss that, but to claim that this has be either Shikishima level of good writing or Haruo Sakaki level of bad writing is in incredibly bad faith.
This comment is getting rather long, and for the sake of give and take discourse here I'm willing to concede GxK as a bad film and even give you some actual ammunition rather than shooting down dumb arguments but expecting us to still make them. In the commentary track for GxK, the team basically admits at several points that they had explanations for plot points planned out but cut them before they could make it in or be fleshed out properly (crystals as light source in Hollow Earth as well as Kong getting to Malenka for end of act 2 act 3). The crystals really don't matter. They fall under reasonable suspension of disbelief but are also a good example of the creative team's laziness. Conversely, Kong making it out of the Subterranean realm is a massive issue in the plot that they thought would be covered up by decent pacing and "turning off your brain". If people actually do tell you those are of the same level, then I am actually very sorry that you had to have discussions like that. Hollow Earth crystals can be chalked up to aesthetic in a sci-fantasy movie, but nothing about contrived time and space dilation (or the disappearing ape from the 4v1) needs to happen in a sci-fantasy movie, meaning massive issue. We shouldn't really assume laziness, but Wingard and his team admit to it freely, so we can do that in good faith.
@@josephgibson5902 Gvk and Gxk both had massive potential to be uniquely well written fantasy action, even if the final products isn't what some or 55% fans
wanted, they are still decent while being flawed, The major problems I found in GXK is that pacing is bland plus jia didn't felt so important with underwhelming fights in here than in gvk, the movie could've been realistically short (I don't want to be) but there is so much to do in 1 hour and 30 or 40 min.
@@jameskullu2413 I think I just agree with you. I have GvK at like a 7 out of 10 and GxK at a 4 but appreciate both while acknowledging flaws.
I don't have an issue with Jia in GxK because I honestly would argue not only is she not the focus of her arc, but it's a subplot. Kong is the character whose motivation drives the most scenes. Andrews is the one who is most focused on during Jia's scenes, but her characterization trails off and picks back up to allow Bernie to document the Iwi and Trapper to be inconsistent about how much he knows and cares about the flora fauna
My larger issues with the film are Trapper's character and plot relevance (once you realize he shouldn't have ever been down in the Hollow Earth but has a dedicated seat in the HEAV, that's strange, gets worse when you consider he knew what the tree mimic was but didn't realize he had found it, he also insults Mikael during that scene to where Mikael probably wouldn't have blown up otherwise, and finally bringing the Vertacines to fight Shimo is basically killing them, and animal lover Trapper never realized this). He and One Eye have to basically teleport whenever the plot demands (One Eye returning to Skar King from Malenka happens in the same amount of time it takes Trapper to walk down a hill and look at Kong's arm, and then Trapper manages to run to the HEAV, fly that to Outpost One, hook up the Glove to the MULE vehicle, fly back, help evacuate Malenka, take the MULE to get the HEAV, find the Vertacines and bring them back through the barrier, which the Iwi can't open because they are evacuated and the barrier and Vertacines are bioelectric so they shouldn't have been able to get through, the long way all before Skar King arrives back). Those issues creep in over the course of the film, so I kind of would argue that the first act of GxK is actually really good since most things follow logically, and the sinkhole contrivance is the inciting incident and gets some leeway
First
Ehh? A bit over my head upon this first viewing. However. Two things I do know is that Godzilla Final Wars sucks ass, & Omni Viewer needs a couple kitana's mounted on his back, now more than ever.